The addition of preoperative three-dimensional analysis alters implant choice in shoulder arthroplasty

Background The primary objective of the present study was to investigate how preoperative imaging modalities including 3D computed tomography (CT) scans with preoperative planning software affect implant choice for shoulder arthroplasty. Methods X-ray, uncorrected 2D CT scans, and 3D CT scans from 21 patients undergoing primary arthroplasty were reviewed by five shoulder surgeons. Each surgeon measured glenoid version, inclination and humeral head subluxation, and then selected an anatomic or reverse shoulder arthroplasty implant based only on these imaging parameters. Each surgeon virtually positioned the implant. Agreement between surgeons and changes in plan for individual surgeons between imaging modalities were assessed. Results Average measurements of native version, inclination, and subluxation were similar across all imaging modalities with very good interobserver reliability. Overall, there was a high rate of variability in choice of implant depending on imaging modality. Agreement on implant selection between surgeons improved from 68.6% using x-ray to 80.0% with 3D CT. Introducing age added significant variability, reducing agreement on implant choice to 61.0% with 3D CT. Conclusions The use of preoperative 3D planning changes implant choice in nearly one-third of cases compared to plain radiographs and improves surgeon agreement on implant choice compared to x-ray and 2D CT. Level of evidence: III.

[1]  G. Walch,et al.  Patient-specific planning in shoulder arthroplasty. , 2020, The bone & joint journal.

[2]  K. Koh,et al.  Loosening and revision rates after total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review of cemented all-polyethylene glenoid and three modern designs of metal-backed glenoid , 2020, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

[3]  T. Wright,et al.  Clinical and radiographic outcomes with a posteriorly augmented glenoid for Walch B glenoids in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. , 2020, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[4]  A. Romeo,et al.  Minimum 5-year outcomes of pegged versus keeled all-polyethylene glenoids , 2019, JSES open access.

[5]  J. Iannotti,et al.  Pre-operative planning for reverse shoulder replacement: the surgical benefits and their clinical translation , 2019, Annals of Joint.

[6]  G. Walch,et al.  Mid-term results of reverse shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis with posterior glenoid deficiency and humeral subluxation. , 2019, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[7]  Jason C. Ho,et al.  Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of a Posteriorly Augmented Glenoid Component in Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Primary Osteoarthritis with Posterior Glenoid Bone Loss , 2018, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[8]  M. Provencher,et al.  Version and inclination obtained with 3-dimensional planning in total shoulder arthroplasty: do different programs produce the same results? , 2018, JSES open access.

[9]  F. Gohlke,et al.  The influence of three-dimensional planning on decision-making in total shoulder arthroplasty. , 2017, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[10]  J. Somerson,et al.  Does Postoperative Glenoid Retroversion Affect the 2-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes for Total Shoulder Arthroplasty? , 2017, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[11]  A. Gee,et al.  Classifications in Brief: Walch Classification of Primary Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis , 2017, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[12]  Peter N. Chalmers,et al.  Radiographic characterization of the B2 glenoid: the effect of computed tomographic axis orientation. , 2017, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[13]  Olivier Verborgt,et al.  Patient-specific instrument guidance of glenoid component implantation reduces inclination variability in total and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. , 2016, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[14]  P. Raiss,et al.  Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis in patients with a biconcave glenoid. , 2013, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[15]  A. Armstrong,et al.  Comparison of standard two-dimensional and three-dimensional corrected glenoid version measurements. , 2011, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[16]  C. D. Bryce,et al.  Two-dimensional glenoid version measurements vary with coronal and sagittal scapular rotation. , 2010, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[17]  D. D’Lima,et al.  Accuracy of CT-based measurements of glenoid version for total shoulder arthroplasty. , 2010, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[18]  J. Bryan,et al.  The influence of three-dimensional computed tomography images of the shoulder in preoperative planning for total shoulder arthroplasty. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[19]  J. Bryan,et al.  Quantitative analysis of glenoid bone loss in osteoarthritis using three-dimensional computed tomography scans. , 2008, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[20]  Kamal I. Bohsali,et al.  Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[21]  G. Walch,et al.  Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. , 1999, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[22]  Kimerly A Powell,et al.  Use of three-dimensional computed tomography for the analysis of the glenoid anatomy. , 2005, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.